### Re: Mind or minds

Posted:

**Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:06 pm**Ok, I did that. I was aware of the idea though.Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:56 amSo we are on the same page. Lets just skip the red herrings here again and any arguments over "how precise should a model be" and go for gold.

Every "thing" has a wave equation. Complex or simple.

There's also the down-side to it. Every model is subject to the "space-time trade-off" (google will help you).

We don't need to solve the equation for the whole universe to understand how the chair that I am sitting on it is functioning. Why? Because the wave function of electrons of the chair drop off exponentially as we get farther from the chair. So basically we are dealing with a negligible contribution if we try to find exact whole wave function. The very fact that we could identify separate objects in reality confirm this, otherwise everything was connected and we have only one object.Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:56 amYou are appealing to "comprehension" whatever that means. Accurate prediction, I imagine? How accurate?

You are a physicist.

You understand that there are certain limits to certain things - because physics (not to mention that theoretical limits are far beyond our practical abilities most of the time)

You are made of the same stuff that you are trying to understand.

So those limits apply to you.

Those limits apply to your understanding/comprehension.

If what you mean by "comprehensive understanding" is theoretically, but not practically possible then it is impossible.

Say - if the wave equation you've come up with will take 10 universe lifetimes to solve with current computational power - you are shit out of luck.

Because it is comprehensible.

There is no problem to have a unbound reality since objects are separate and we can find wave function for each object separately and have a good understanding of subject.Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:56 amI am getting a glimpse that we have similar thinking, but the above sentence strikes me as contradictory.

If reality is structured, but unbounded - then it's hypothetically possible for us to reduce reality to a wave equation, but it would be impossible to solve such an equation because it will have infinite inputs which would make it infinitely complex. If we can't solve the equation, then would you say that we "understand" reality?

Understanding requires acomputablemodel. e.g a model from which I can get useful consequences which align with my experiences.

Colloquially we call those predictions.

If you can't compute the equation - you can't make any predictions. Therefore you don't understand.

I already argue that we don't need to solve the wave equation of the whole. There are systematical method which allows us to find the wave function of large system such as a piece of metal too.Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:56 amIf the world is quantum, then it's necessarily computational. Everything is a state machine.

I mentioned "space-time trade-offs" earlier, now I am going to refer to "spacetime complexity".

Google it also and you will end up at an intersection between Mathematics' category theory and computer science's complexity theory.

Which is along the lines of "We live in a computer simulation!" but far more boring and theoretical than the media hype would have you believe.

Now that I have introduced the new concepts on which my argument rests:

* The universe may well have a precise and exact wave equation - A Theory of Everything.

* The equation will be subjected to space-time trade offs if it is to be calculated in a human lifetime.

Because space-time trade-off and because you want a prediction you can't trade off time - you must necessarily trade-off space.

So - to solve the universe's wave equation in any reasonable amount of time you need more space (memory) than the size of the current universe. Oops

P.S I over-simplified this a little by ignoring the Margolus–Levitin theorem which imposes another limit on the amount of energy required to perform the computation.

But suffice to say that computation is a function of space, time and energy.

This page has a plethora of limits to be accounted for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_of ... cal_limits